![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Coming Apart at the SeamsPosted on Sep 14, 2007WASHINGTON—Gen. David Petraeus likes to describe the Iraq he envisions as a patchwork quilt. You establish security in a neighborhood over here, bring peace to a village over there, create more and more of these scraps of relative tranquility—and then stitch the heterogeneous pieces together. The problem is with the seams. They have a tendency to unravel. On Thursday, while Petraeus was still in Washington delivering his optimistic progress report, the biggest success he has been touting all week—the decision by Sunni tribal leaders in formerly hostile Anbar province to switch sides and cooperate with the Americans—was ominously threatened. A roadside bomb in Ramadi killed Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the most prominent of the newly cooperative sheiks, calling into question the “political shift of seismic proportions” that Petraeus has advertised. The general was confident that the assassination would not send Anbar back into chaos—that, on the contrary, it would strengthen the resolve of the tribal leaders. Earlier this year, before the “surge” of additional American troops began, the sheiks decided that the best way to rid the province of an increasingly oppressive al-Qaida presence was to work with U.S. occupation forces. “I think that the tribes will pull together and go after whoever did this,” Petraeus said in an interview with reporters and editors of The Washington Post. But he also acknowledged Abu Risha’s leadership among the sheiks and called his death “a tragic loss ... a terrible loss for Anbar province and all of Iraq.” Meanwhile, another seam appeared to be separating: Political negotiations over a proposed law governing the country’s oil fields were reportedly moving away from a deal, rather than toward one. Strictly speaking, the oil deal isn’t Petraeus’ problem; it’s something for U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker to worry about. “I think that both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment,” Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday in a telephone interview. “George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig.” Having attended sessions with both Petraeus and Crocker this week, I tend to agree. These aren’t a couple of yahoos on some wild-eyed ideological mission. They are skilled, knowledgeable professionals who understand that their first job is to avoid doing things that would make the situation in Iraq worse than it already is. If you take as a given that there will be well over 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through the end of the Bush administration—and that’s Bush’s unwise decision, not the general’s or the ambassador’s—then creating pockets of stability, and trying to sustain and enlarge them, seems like a reasonable use of those forces. There’s a disconnect, though. The patchwork strategy that Petraeus and Crocker describe is necessarily slow and painstaking; it requires time for old wounds to heal and enmities to fade. But most of the surge troops that Petraeus is deploying in Anbar and around Baghdad will have to be withdrawn by next summer—not because of anything Bush might decide, but because the Army and the Marine Corps are running out of available forces. And it’s clear that while Republicans in Congress might not be ready yet to force the president to end his Iraq adventure, there is no support for keeping anything like current troop levels in Iraq for, say, a decade or two, to give the Iraqis time to decide if they want to become a nation again. “This is an ethno-sectarian competition for power and resources,” Petraeus said this week. He described the U.S. role as trying to ensure that Iraqis conduct that competition via politics rather than force of arms. As a soldier, it’s not his job to make U.S. foreign policy; that responsibility, alas, falls to Bush. Petraeus has been handed a bushel of lemons and is trying his best to make something akin to lemonade. Both he and Crocker said they believe the United States can do considerable good in Iraq. Both men said they believed there were important U.S. national security interests that could be protected there. We heard both men speak optimistically about “success” in Iraq, but they were careful to leave the definition of success open to interpretation. From neither man did we hear any chest-thumping, saber-rattling, or thundering promises of “victory.” That’s because it’s the Iraqis’ war. We’re just in the middle of it. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The New Majority Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Conservative Yankee, September 18, 2007 at 4:58 am # 100981 by cyrena on 9/17 at 7:12 pm Your rant still did not link Bush to the Rockefellers which was Mr. Billis original contention. I seriously doubt there is much I can learn from either of you about the oil business, but please prove me wrong. I’m familiar with Carlyle.
By Conservative Yankee, September 16, 2007 at 5:04 am # 100629 by thomas billis on 9/15 at 2:32 pm “Bush has never met an oil company he did not like.” My point was that your contention was based on misinformation. your new post contains more of the same. Bush also owned a MLB team. do you suppose there are other teams he dose not like? It is easier to post opinion based on nothing then to get necessary information, but if you happen to be the type of person interested in truth, I have several good books which may interest you. Barbarians at the Gates; tells of the merger-madness of unbridled capitalism in the 80’s. it has several good pages about a man named Raleigh Warner Jr. The History of the Standard Oil Company; a non complimentary review of how John D. Rockefeller cobbled together the company, resources, and people who made up the richest corporate entity ever(counted in today’s dollars) The Life of John D. Rockefeller; which includes his battle with interloper Texas Oil Company (known today as Texaco) The three of these books together tell how regional corporate entities attempted to enrich themselves through the subversion of our constitution, the enslavement of peoples around the world, and the toppling of governments. Our system (US capitalism) provided a warm bed which nurtured and encouraged these entities. If you believe Bush and his family is the problem, you need more information. Bush and his presidency are symptoms of a far reaching disease.
By thomas billis, September 15, 2007 at 2:32 pm # To conservative yankee.My point was to pick the largest oil company that our army is representing in Iraq.Not per se Exxon Mobil.Pick the oil company you like and substitute it.Bush has never met an oil company he did not like.
By Conservative Yankee, September 15, 2007 at 4:39 am # 100521 by THOMAS BILLIS on 9/14 at 9:31 pm “Surpise surprise American oil men are moving into Iraq and cutting oil deals.With the protection of Bush’s exxon mobil rangers.” This is a false and intentionally inflammatory statement, most likely born out of ignorance. Find me one single link between the Bush family and Exxon Mobil. ADDITIONALLY show me any information where the Rockefeller’s cozied up with Bushes.... They hate each-other! To get the full poop, read up on; Standard Oil and it’s early competitors. You’ll find that the North-East oil companies (Standard of New York + Mobil, Standard of New Jersey = EXXON) have a long and acrimonious relationship with the Texas wildcatters (where the Bush family was involved) Yes we are in Iraq for the oil, and yes ExxonMobil will be involved with marketing that oil (although it will probably flow through Aramco first) BUT Bush didn’t go to Iraq for the Rockefellers… He went for himself. AND, like the drug problem, US citizens get it backwards continually! It is the CONSUMER who drives the endless conflict for the resource, not the supplier. Without the CONSUMER, there is no market!
By THOMAS BILLIS, September 14, 2007 at 9:31 pm # Surpise surprise American oil men are moving into Iraq and cutting oil deals.With the protection of Bush’s exxon mobil rangers this should just work out fine.When the American people catch on to the blood for oil plan of this administration Petraeus Betrayus will be the nicest of terms used to describe the only General left willing to be a lackey for a failed policy.
By DennisD, September 14, 2007 at 6:03 pm # Absolutely right, it was always about the oil and the control of it. And Bu$h family connections being first to feed at the trough should surprise no one. Will this story be mentioned on any of the so called liberal mainstream media shows. I doubt it because those same oil interests control all.
By HCohen, September 14, 2007 at 1:16 pm # Petraeus is skilled, knowledgeable professional and a proven failure. He was incharge of the US central strategy in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 - training the Iraqi Military, so “we can stand down”. This strategy was a complete failure. Petraeus kept on saying its working. he is a proven failure and a liar. I heard the beltway pundits praising him but they never fought under his command.
By Jimnp72, September 14, 2007 at 11:59 am # “There would be terrible suffering if we left?”
By Rolf Bremer, September 14, 2007 at 7:03 am # Why very few people ask why the US has build four big PERMANENT military bases in Iraq, right after the invasion?
By Conservative Yankee, September 14, 2007 at 5:40 am # My favorite line is “There would be unimaginable suffering if we left Iraq."\ Someone should point out that within families, it is unimagined suffering to lose a father, son, mother or daughter...our troops. End this farce NOW!!!! or face the consequences. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article